Markson v. Buchan
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The controversy in this case is between Herman Markson, as assignee of the Leavenworth Savings
“And the said party of the first part does hereby, in consid-ation as aforesaid, further promise, covenant and agree to save, keep harmless, and indemnify said party of the second part, its successors or assigns, from and against any and all debts and liabilities, costs, payments, expenses or demands of every kind and description in law and equity or otherwise, at the date of this instrument outstanding and in force against said party of the second part, or that may hereafter accrue or exist against said party of the second part, on account, by reason, or in any way growing out of any liability or demand of any kind now existing against said party of the second part, on account of its policy liabilities; but said party of the first part hereby reserves all legal defense to said demand or liabilities, or either of them."
It was agreed further in the contract that—
“All the mortgages and notes given by the stockholders of the Life Assurance Society to secure the payment of their stock should be returned to the parties who gave the same, or their assigns, upon the execution of the contract, or as soon thereafter as practicable.”
“Resolved, That the owners of stock in that company be requested to pay the amount of three per cent, on their capital stock, and that the money so paid shall be used as a fund to take up all outstanding debts of this company; the money so paid to be paid into the hands of G. H. Hyde, and to be expended under the direction of the executive committee for the purpose aforesaid, and the claims so taken up to be assigned to said G. H. Hyde, to be held by him against said company to the full amount thereof, till settled as herein provided.
“As soon as all debts against the company shall be taken up, and the securities held by the officers of the state can be surrendered and assigned to any holder of such stock, who shall contribute as much or more than his proportion of the amount necessary to take up said debts, the securities of all who fail to so contribute shall be foreclosed, and the money arising from such foreclosure shall be applied to the expense of the same and to the payment of the share which the holder of the stock is liable on the debt so taken up.”
On April 12, 1880, the board of directors took the following action:
“Resolved, That proceedings be commenced to foreclose all mortgages given for stock on which assessment shall not be paid as heretofore called, within thirty days from this date, and that the executive committee secure counsel and make all necessary arrangements for the foreclosure of said mortgages;
At the July term of this court for 1881, in the case of The Life Assurance Society v. Orrin T. Welch, as Superintendent of Insurance, &c., 26 Kas. 632, judgment was rendered in favor .of the society, compelling the superintendent to deliver up to the Assurance Society all securities belonging to the company and deposited with the treasurer of state, except an amount of such securities equal to what was known as the reserve liability on the outstanding policies of the company. The note of July 1,1873, of $13,250, and the first mortgage to secure the same, remained with the treasurer of state under the deposit of the Life Assurance Society to about December 8, 1881, when, in pursuance of the judgment of this court, the note and mortgage were returned to the Assurance Society. Afterward the directors of the society made assessments amounting to $500 on the one hundred thirty-two and one-half shares of capital stock, which was, in March, 1882, paid by William Buchan, A. T. Hines, G. Y. Bryant, and E. S. Bartlett, as the owners of said shares. The transfer and sale to W. J. Buchan, as trustee, etc., of the note of July 1,1873, and the mortgages given to secure the same, was the payment of $500 in pursuance of said resolutions heretofore cited and the assessments thereunder, and the transfer to him, and the parties he represented, of their portion of the assets of the Assurance Society on account of their being stockholders of stock for which the note and mortgages had been given.
The theory upon which Markson bases his claim that he is entitled to the proceeds of the sale of the lands embraced in the mortgages and ordered to be sold, prior to Buchan, as trustee, is, that he acquired a lien against the lands at the date of his judgment as assignee, on October 20, 1877, and that as the note and moi’tgages were returned to the Life Assurance Society in pursuance of the contract between the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company of California and said society,
It is further contended that the Life Assurance Society, having provided substantially for the discharge of the notes and mortgages by'the contract of September 29, 1876, it was not competent or in the power of the society to afterward dispose of the note and mortgages to Buchan or any other parties. The notes and mortgages are also claimed to have been released and discharged for various other reasons.
It is sufficient, however, to say that in our opinion all of these claims are untenable. The evidence produced before the trial court is not before us. The findings of that court, therefore, must be taken as conclusive. One of the findings is—
“ That the said W. J. Buchan, and the other parties for whom he is trustee in this suit, are and were bona fide holders of said stock, and had been for a long time before the institution of this suit, and before the rendition of the judgment in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas, at its June term, in 1881, in the action pending in that court by James N. Burnes, as administrator, etc., and Herman Markson, as assignee, etc., against George R. Hines, A. T. Hines, G. W. Bryant, and others.”
In the latter action, the complainants were defeated as to said stock, and under the decree and judgment of that court, Buchan and the parties for whom he is trustee were decided to have been, prior to 1878, the bona fide owners of the stock issued in the first instance to George R. Hiues. Here was an adjudication against Markson that Hines had not fraudulently disposed of his stock, and that Markson has no lien or claim thereon. This matter cannot be relitigated in this suit. When
Neither the Life Assurance Society, nor the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company, nor any of the stockholders of either company, nor any of the creditors of said corporations, are here objecting to the resolutions or proceedings of the Life Assurance Society in making assessments upon its stockholders, or in disposing of its securities. No fraud is established, or can be assumed from any of the findings, and Markson, who has, as assignee, simply a judgment against George R. Hines, cannot, against the findings of the trial court, question the bona fides of Buchan as trustee in obtaining the note and mortgages in suit. Markson has no judgment against Buchan, or any of the parties he represents; no judgment against the Life Assurance Society; and is in no way the representative of the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company. As George R. Hines sold and disposed of his stock in the Life Assurance Society before 1878, it was not the proper thing for the society, in the matter of closing up its affairs, to return to him the note and mortgages, because Buchan and the parties he represents paid the assessment on the stock originally issued to him; and further, because by the resolutions of the stockholders and directors of the society, the securities, when received from the state
Something is said to the effect that the judgment of the United States circuit court of June, 1881, would have been different if the note and mortgages had been surrendered to the Life Assurance Society when the action was commenced. There is a statement in the opinion filed in that case, that if' the securities had been surrendered at the commencement of the action, the matter would have been considered in the determination of the cause. This is about all. It however appears from the opinion that in the investigation of the transactions of George R. Hines in that case, that no fraud was established upon his part, and the court makes the positive
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.